Nanophobia is Waiting for You

Just when I thought I had exhausted all the things to be afraid of in life, like a large comet or meteor striking Earth near where I live, comes a new threat from the opposite direction: very tiny nanoparticles in products.

If you have paid attention to the frontiers of science, then you are at least vaguely aware that incredibly small particles have moved beyond theory to early commercial use. These nanoparticles are less than 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter and a human hair ranges from 50,000 to 100,000 nanometers. Water and many other kinds of molecules are less than one nanometer and a typical germ is about 1,000 nanometers. So clearly nanoparticles are really, really extremely small.

Although a recent New York Times article has caused a stir because it uses the term nanophobia, I found a 2003 article with that title. It pointed to all sorts of reasons to fear nanotechnology. That year Bill McKibben published a nonfiction book called Enough. His thesis was that nanotechnology threatens humans with destruction as a species. While a whole lot of nanotechnology advances pose no threat, such as things made for computer chips, the use of nanoparticles in consumer products has steadily progressed.

What has become scary is that new kinds of manufactured nanoparticles are being placed in products in ways that could result in them entering our bodies. What happens to them? Could they accumulate in some tissues and wreck havoc, possibly causing an organ to fail? In other words, could nanoparticles be toxic just because of their small size?

Nanoparticles are already being used in some cosmetic creams, lotions and sunscreens, for example. In clothing stain resistance is being achieved by using nanoparticles that repel oil and dirt. Anti-bacteria agents can make use of nanoparticles. If paranoia is your thing, then you can start to worry about nanoparticles in such products crossing the skin barrier or getting into your lungs, especially since there seems to be no government regulation of nanoparticles in consumer products.

A most useful source of information is the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies that was established in April 2005 as a partnership between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Pew Charitable Trusts. It makes available an inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. The group notes that "it has been difficult to find out how many 'nano' consumer products are on the market and which merchandise could be called 'nano'." Some of the products it offers information on are provocative, including socks with nanoparticles of silver that offer anti-bacteria and anti-odor properties, a glass and mirror cleaner with some sort of nanoparticles, a toothpaste containing silver nanoparticles, and an adhesive for McDonald's burger containers containing nanoparticles of starch.

The magazine Consumer Reports reported a study that found mineral nanoparticles in five sunscreen products, but that four of the companies had denied using them.

The consumer group in London called Which? points out on its website that "Some nanomaterials could have harmful properties. We don't know enough about how the materials behave at such a small scale and nanoscience experts, such as The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, fear certain nanoparticles may hide unforeseen side effects."

Which? conducted a survey of 67 cosmetic companies about their use of nanoparticles and whether they were tested for their safety in personal care products. But only 17 companies responded with only eight acknowledging their use of nanoparticles. If companies are being secretive and deceptive about their use of nanoparticles, then maybe it is rational to suffer from nanophobia.

Which? also noted that a 2008 study had examined concerns that some free carbon nanotubes, used in products such as sports equipment might penetrate deeply into the lungs. The study found that longer carbon nanotubes might be as harmful as asbestos and therefore need to be properly controlled. Other research has found lung damage in rats that inhaled nanoparticles. So, do we need health and safety standards for nanoparticles? Aside from their chemical makeup, might their incredible small size pose hazards not yet fully understood? And how about better disclosure of nanoparticles on labels?

I don't know about you, but I am beginning to feel tiny twitches of nanophobia.